New York’s Empty Storefronts Are A Dark Omen For The Future Of Cities

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

If

Also, the economy is firing.

When the economy slumps into recession, alcohol sales tend to increase.

E] wrong quote m, whoops

[10023]

FT: Philip Hammond looks to ease converting empty shops into homes

https://www.ft.com/content/d68c11cc-...5?desktop=true


I’m of two minds about this. It’s a fine idea until you realise that converting these properties back to commercial space once they’ve been made residential is completely impossible.

What happens when you actually do need more neighborhood retail, or restaurants, bars or cafés, and all the ground floor property along arterial streets has been converted to apartments housing NIMBYs?

Ground floor retail is kind of a finite resource. I don’t think we should be too hasty to get rid of it when we don’t know if the present challenges will persist or if some new dynamic will emerge.

[the urban politician]

^ I agree.

[ocman]

double post

[ocman]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

at 42 i'm at the very young end of gen x, and i define gen x as being book-ended by two ridiculously awesome bands:

van halen

to

nirvana




limp bizkit is some other stupid fucking generation.

I don’t consider Van Halen Gen X, at least in sensibility. Limp Bizkit is 48 years old and firmly Gen X. Not going to complicate the conversation by introducing the generation between Gen X and Millenials but Nirvana represents peak Gen X, not the end of Gen X, so I’d say the downslide that happened immediately afterwards needs to be taken ownership by them as well.

Especially because the criticisms of the millenial generation are happening relatively recently (instagram culture, rainbow food, duck-face selfies, tight jeans, yoga pants, me-too), and their voice is firmly dominant today, and culturally less close from the alpha-male time period than Gen X was .

The difference culturally that’s easiest to distinguish the two is the Gen X was defined by anti-fashion, Millenial is defined by body consciousness.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ocman

I don’t consider Van Halen Gen X, at least in sensibility.

van halen defined my entire childhood in the '80s, and being born in '76, i'm on the extreme younger edge of gen X, so there were a shit-ton of Gen X high-schoolers and college kids at the time rocking out to halen.

Originally Posted by ocman

Limp Bizkit is 48 years old and firmly Gen X. Not going to complicate the conversation by introducing the generation between Gen X and Millenials but Nirvana represents peak Gen X, not the end of Gen X, so I’d say the downslide that happened immediately afterwards needs to be taken ownership by them as well.

you can put limp bizkit wherever you want, but it's a horrible band to choose for gen X rock.

peak gen X rock is nirvana, the pixies, U2, beck, pearl jam, soundgarden, red hot chili peppers, smashing pumpkins, jane's addiction, sonic youth, etc.

the crap like limp bizkit that came after the fall of grunge might be rooted in all of that, but it is in no way definitive of anything that i or any of my fellow gen X'ers would describe as "our" music. i literally knew only one lone guy who actually liked limp bizkit at the time, and he was a complete tool.

every generation produces an untold shitload of musical crap, but you don't judge a generation by it's worst, but by it's best, and gen X had A LOT of really fucking good rock.

[eschaton]

I'm a younger X-er, born in 1979. I definitely thought of Van Halen as being something of the previous generation. Then again, I was one of those nerdy kids who didn't really listen to anything but Weird Al Yankovic till I started 8th grade and started getting into...uhh...real music. I was even a little to young to really care when Nevermind first came out, though I got into it soon after.

On the other hand, my wife, who is eight years older than I am (thus more of a "peak Gen-Xer"), hated Nirvana because she thought they were a blatant ripoff of the Pixies.

One thing to remember is that typically young people listen to musical artists around half a generation older than they were. Thus the 1980s musicians - who a lot of Xers listened to when they were in high school - were actually baby boomers. the Nirvana era was basically when Generation X took over as being the main group influencing popular musical culture, but at that point most of their age cohort was old enough that they weren't looking for the next trendy thing in music.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by 10023

FT: Philip Hammond looks to ease converting empty shops into homes

https://www.ft.com/content/d68c11cc-...5?desktop=true


I’m of two minds about this. It’s a fine idea until you realise that converting these properties back to commercial space once they’ve been made residential is completely impossible.

What happens when you actually do need more neighborhood retail, or restaurants, bars or cafés, and all the ground floor property along arterial streets has been converted to apartments housing NIMBYs?

Ground floor retail is kind of a finite resource. I don’t think we should be too hasty to get rid of it when we don’t know if the present challenges will persist or if some new dynamic will emerge.

Yeah, I would be wary of doing that, I think at the moment units generally have to have been empty for at least a couple of years until conversion will be considered. Like you say, once they have gone residential it's unlikely they will ever go back to commercial premises. I'd be more willing to see empty office units on upper floors converted to housing if they are left empty for long periods.

If you build more new housing elsewhere in the neighbourhood that might well encourage new business tenants to take up those empty units anyway so this wouldn't be needed.

[10023]

^ Right. And in London anyway, the answer is obvious, and it is to rebuild and add density to postwar housing developments (council or otherwise). They’re ugly, the urban form of the neighborhoods are horrible, the the densities are often low because they were built during a time when London’s population was declining.

You don’t need to get rid of high street retail or build on green belt. Just put the right number of people in Rotherhithe, Wapping, Stepney and places like those. Basically any part of London with rail transit and little period housing can be redeveloped.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by 10023

^ Right. And in London anyway, the answer is obvious, and it is to rebuild and add density to postwar housing developments (council or otherwise). They’re ugly, the urban form of the neighborhoods are horrible, the the densities are often low because they were built during a time when London’s population was declining.

There's a ton of this happening in Toronto right now - infill developments being built on the "park" part of post-war towers-in-the-park. It's a great way to add density without displacing anything; and at a relatively lower cost if the existing owner develops it, being that they already own the land. Not sure it's doing much in the grand scheme of things to alleviate housing costs though.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by ocman

I don’t consider Van Halen Gen X, at least in sensibility. Limp Bizkit is 48 years old and firmly Gen X. Not going to complicate the conversation by introducing the generation between Gen X and Millenials but Nirvana represents peak Gen X, not the end of Gen X, so I’d say the downslide that happened immediately afterwards needs to be taken ownership by them as well.

Van Halen themselves were/are Boomers but their music and influence absolutely did resonate with X'ers. Nevermind debuted my senior year in high school. That whole time, VH was still hugely popular.

[Acajack]

Regarding the subtext of the article in the OP, I think we are probably going to have to come to terms with the fact that our cities are probably way overbuilt in terms retail space, at least relative to what our future needs will be.

We're not just overbuilt in terms of commercial main streets, but also when it comes to enclosed malls, strip malls, etc.

Cities as a concept primarily owe their existence to their role as places of commerce, and so this will be a huge transformation when the amount of commerce (at least in terms of retail) taking place within them recedes greatly.

Stating the obvious I know, but it still felt good.

[Acajack]

As for the sidetracked discussion, if indeed millenials are drinking less, part of it is probably related to the fact that a larger share of that generation (relative to previous ones) is made of people who don't drink for religious or cultural reasons, or both.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Regarding the subtext of the article in the OP, I think we are probably going to have to come to terms with the fact that our cities are probably way overbuilt in terms retail space, at least relative to what our future needs will be.

We're not just overbuilt in terms of commercial main streets, but also when it comes to enclosed malls, strip malls, etc.

Cities as a concept primarily owe their existence to their role as places of commerce, and so this will be a huge transformation when the amount of commerce (at least in terms of retail) taking place within them recedes greatly.

Stating the obvious I know, but it still felt good.

Counterpoint:

Cities are places where human beings interact with one another, and human beings will still want to do that. To the extent that “going shopping” is no longer an activity, but rather something people do from their desk at work, or even from their phones while sitting in a bar with friends, that activity will be replaced with other social activities. If online shopping actually saves us time, then this will free up time for things like going out to eat or meeting friends for drinks. The fact that Amazon exists doesn’t mean that people want to spend their weekends sitting at home by themselves.

Perhaps there won’t be enough new cafés, restaurants, bars, and various other things that cannot be substituted online to make up for the loss of durable goods retail space, but this will be offset to some extent. Something has to replace the activity of running errands or spending the day walking around a mall.

And if I had to guess, I would say that small format urban retail does a LOT better in this world that suburban big box stores from the peak of pre-Amazon suburbanisation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by 10023

Counterpoint:

Cities are places where human beings interact with one another, and human beings will still want to do that. To the extent that “going shopping” is no longer an activity, but rather something people do from their desk at work, or even from their phones while sitting in a bar with friends, that activity will be replaced with other social activities. If online shopping actually saves us time, then this will free up time for things like going out to eat or meeting friends for drinks. The fact that Amazon exists doesn’t mean that people want to spend their weekends sitting at home by themselves.

Perhaps there won’t be enough new cafés, restaurants, bars, and various other things that cannot be substituted online to make up for the loss of durable goods retail space, but this will be offset to some extent. Something has to replace the activity of running errands or spending the day walking around a mall.

And if I had to guess, I would say that small format urban retail does a LOT better in this world that suburban big box stores from the peak of pre-Amazon suburbanisation.

I actually agree, and was going to go there with a follow-up post. Cities most definitely aren't "doomed".

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Regarding the subtext of the article in the OP, I think we are probably going to have to come to terms with the fact that our cities are probably way overbuilt in terms retail space, at least relative to what our future needs will be.

We're not just overbuilt in terms of commercial main streets, but also when it comes to enclosed malls, strip malls, etc.

Cities as a concept primarily owe their existence to their role as places of commerce, and so this will be a huge transformation when the amount of commerce (at least in terms of retail) taking place within them recedes greatly.

Stating the obvious I know, but it still felt good.

Not sure I agree - the main problem facing Manhattan retail as described in the article is that it's overpriced rather than overbuilt. The unaffordability is no doubt exacerbated by declining sales attributed to online retail for some businesses, but I think the more important culprit here is that landlords are getting ahead of themselves by increasing commercial rental rates in line with residential increases when that market cannot actually support it (for many other reasons as well). There's also the issue that unlike rental apartments, there is no rent control for commercial units.

Relative to the recent past, while people are doing more shopping online; they're also eating out more, plus there's more demand for things like fresh food, gyms, speciality boutique-type shops, and tactile/experience-based places. Plus things like corner stores, laundromats, bike repair shops, and other services will always be needed - so long as they can still afford the rent. Physical retail isn't going anywhere.

(edit: I see 10023 already got to it first)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Relative to the recent past, while people are doing more shopping online; they're also eating out more, plus there's more demand for things like fresh food, gyms, speciality boutique-type shops, and tactile/experience-focused places. Plus things like corner stores, laundromats, bike repair shops, and other services that will always be needed. Physical retail isn't going anywhere.

Exactly. It's just evolving. Most retail now requires the customer to physically be in the store.

[Acajack]

It's still a definite possibility that we've overbuilt our cities and suburbs in terms of retail space. Cities can definitely survive and in many cases prosper, but they'll change considerably when it comes to how commercial space is used. If they don't transform, they will suffer greatly.

[10023]

We’ll see. Sometimes the futurists get ahead of themselves. Already it seems like the promise of a “paperless office” was the flying car of the 1990s.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As for the sidetracked discussion, if indeed millenials are drinking less, part of it is probably related to the fact that a larger share of that generation (relative to previous ones) is made of people who don't drink for religious or cultural reasons, or both.

Not sure I agree. Within the U.S. the proportion of younger people who are part of religions like Islam which prohibit alcohol is rather small.

Other demographic shifts may play a role however. Millennials are much less white than older generations, and white people tend to have the highest levels of alcohol consumption.